Talk:Chelation therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

trimethylselenonium

trimethylselenonium supposedly binds with arsenic in a way that not only neutralizes it, but actually produces cancer-preventing effects that neither of the two compounds produce individually... and of course arsenic by itself is actually a carcinogen. http://www.aor.ca/us/magazines/pdf/SeMC_2003_Spring.pdf

Hm there has been some reasearch into that for some time but it isn't chelation therapy in the sense that the term is normaly used.Geni 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

nicam report

1. Techncaly there could be up to 145 thousand users across the US accordin to the figure you are using (all though if it is that high I would be very suppriesed)

2. Nowhere does the article claim that chelation therapy is popular when used as alternative medcine.

Either prove that people are actually using Chelation therapy as alternative medicine, or state so in your article. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just google it I don't think all those adds are put there for no reason (the nicam paper claims 66 thousandGeni 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3. There are shorter ways of writing abpout the olevels of use.Geni

Actually, I just had to make it longer in order to be more precise. There is one needle in the hay stack. But, we are talking about a very big hay stack. I am sure, that people drink urine too. I just don't see why we need to write about something that nobody actually does in large numbers. Numbers do count! -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was an article on urine thearpy last time I checkedGeni 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Report for future reverts

A survey released in May 2004 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine focused on who used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), what was used, and why it was used in the United States by adults age 18 years and over during 2002. According to this recent survey, chelation therapy as a form of CAM was used to treat 0.0% of the adult population in the United States during 2002 ([1] table 1 on page 8). This means that more than zero, but less than 0.05 percent of the population is estimated to actually use chelation therapy. Consistent with previous studies, this study found that the majority of individuals (i.e., 54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine ( page 6). -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The papaer specifical cautions against using this claimGeni 11:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Try studying statistics some time, Geni. When so few people actually use what you have been attacking, the accuracy of projecting goes down in the under 0.05% category. That is basic statistics. It does not change the fact that nobody use Chelation thearpy in a representative sample of over 30,000 persons. You can actually audit companies this way, poll how citizens will vote in elections, and determine how many people are actually using chelation therapy. Give up Geni! It has been determined that nobody actually uses what you have decided to attack. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Nobody" uses chelation therapy in alternative medicine?!?! Check all the ads when you Google on "chelation therapy"! Someone must be paying for them! Rosemary Amey 17:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The nicam paper mentions a number of users. Your opion poll comparison is interesting considering the existance of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party article. Have fun campianing to remove that.Geni 18:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The NCCAM report is relevant in that numbers are interesting. I've rewritten the para to be shorter and clearer, with the main survey link as reference - David Gerard 21:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The numbers are meaningless according to the NCCAM paper--on page 8, where it says 0.0% of the population used chelation therapy in the last month, please note the asterisk and the note at the bottom: "Estimates preceded by an asterisk have a relative standard error of greater than 30% and should be used with caution as they do not meet the standard of reliability or precision. 0.0 figure does not meet standard of reliability or precision and quantity of more than zero but less than 0.05." This is why I and others keep taking that statistic out. It is not reliable! Rosemary Amey 01:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The numbers are not meaningless according to my brain! I keep on adding back becuase YOU and your ilk do not know how to read medical research or know the basis of statistics!~~ [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 02:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The original report itself says that the number is not reliable or precise--so what is the point? Rosemary Amey 15:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hah. So it's 0.05% plus or minus 30%? - David Gerard 07:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please reread the quote I gave above--the relative standard error is greater than 30%. Rosemary Amey 16:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The American College for Advancement in Medicine estimate was 80,000 patient visits, divided by 40 per patient, or 20,000 patients total. Divided by the US population of 270 million that's 0.007% of the population. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine survey estimated 0.0% plus or minus 0.01% and that's consistent with the ACAM figure, even if that was limited by the small sample size. Since the numbers from the places are in agreement it seemed pointless to suggest that they disagreed, so I reworked the paragraph. Jamesday 10:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why was msg:CamBottom deleted?

David Gerard, why did you delete {{CamBottom}} and say that it violated NPOV? The article does discuss the use of chelation therapy by alternative practitioners. Rosemary Amey 16:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As per edit summary: "remove article box that purports to label the article as representing a POV - NPOV is non-negotiable hard policy". The wording of CamBottom labels the article as a presentation of a particular viewpoint. 1, it isn't; 2, it would be a violation of NPOV if it did. I doubt CamBottom is an appropriate thing to have on any article at all, and am tempted to see the consensus for its removal from all articles, or at least some serious NPOVing in the wording - David Gerard 16:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

how about Alternative Medicine (Terms, Philosophy, Branches, People, History, Index) for now?

Could do, but [[Category:Alternative Medicine]] would provide just about the same information and actually work better within the MediaWiki software. Though this article would need to be in both that category and [[Category:Medicine]], I suppose, even though emergent practice appears to be not to have an article in both category and subcategory. But in that sense, the two parts of this article belong in both categories - David Gerard 18:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning

Autism is one behavioral condition which has been linked to even small amounts of mercury poisoning. Research at the University of Calgary has shown how mercury can interfere with the growth of nerves by disabling the protein tubulin. Chelation therapy is in fact employed by Alternative practitioners to treat this condition; I don't think it is a "minor" edit to remove mention of this, along with concrete scientific substantiation for the merit of chelation therapy to treat it.

This is germane research to the question of mercury and autism. A google search for "calgary mercury autism" yields 34,000 hits. Intersofia 5 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Geni, why are you deleting the reference to the U Calgary research which shows how mercury impairs neuronal formation ? I am restoring it, and expect you to respect this very germane and useful reference or to state why you are suppressing this information Intersofia 15:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This artilce is about Chelation therapy. Not the effects of Hg on the CNS.Geni 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Chelation therapy is used to treat the effects of Hg on the CNS. It is more than germane, apropos and appropriate to mention these negative effects in an article that talks about chelation therapy (particularly when there is an imbalance that is portraying chelation therapy as quackery). Ridding the body of poisonous heavy metals is the "reason for being" of chelation therapy. Mentioning some of the important negative effects on the body of these heavy metals is very on-target for this article.

Chelation therapy might be ineffective for some things, apparently for atherosclerosis it is just as effective as a placebo, but for autism spectrum disorders and for other heavy metal toxicities, it is effective. The references I have included detail how one particular heavy metal, mercury, inhibits the formation of nerve sheaths. This is a documented, proven scientific fact. Ridding a body of this poison is one of the REASONS for chelation therapy. We are exposed to mercury from many sources, including tuna fish, old stocks of thimerosal containing vaccines and other sources. Please don't be disingenuous by claiming that this information does not belong in this article. That is quite silly :-) I'm not goint into great detail into these effects - merely providing a timely link which illustrates one of the valid reasons why chelation therapy can be indicated. Intersofia 19:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Um no. Chelation therapy is used to treat extream heavy metal poisening of the type where in the inhibtion of the formation of nerve sheathsis the least of your worries. It has never been shown to be effective for anything else. There is no evidence that the stardard background level of mercury exposure in industrial first world nations has any effect. There are no decent studdies showing that Chelation therapy can have any effect on anything other than accute heavy metal poisening.Geni 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Um yes. The formation of nerve sheaths is crucial for the formation of neurons. It has been shown that even small amounts of mercury can cause this problem, and if you know anybody who has kids with autism you will agree that it is a significant worry. I disagree with your continued suppression of this information. How can we resolve this point ? Oh, by the way, note the spelling of these words: "extreme", "poisoning", "standard", "studies" Intersofia 02:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The spelling of "atherosclerosis" should be noted, too. Edwardian 05:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at this: [2]. The gist of it is that "chronic inhalation of low-level Hg0 can inhibit polymerization of brain tubulin essential for formation of microtubules." Note "low level" ... even small amounts of mercury in the microgram range are enough to affect tubulin's function and so disrupt the CNS. Intersofia 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit more googling into this issue points out a major flaw with the U of Calgary study on chelation therapy to treat occlusive atherosclerosis. Plug in "artherosclerosis chelation calgary" into Google, and you will find that Thiemenn, the german pharmaceutical concern that sponsored that study, had a vested interest in "proving" EDTA ineffective versus their patented medicine Fludilat. They distorted the study by discarding the best 70 respondents to EDTA chelation therapy and shamelessly reserved the right to edit and censor the published results of the study.

Since the University of Calgary is involved in these two studies (one, the tubulin inhibition study, and the other one, the occlusive artherosclerosis study ) I propose the following paragraph:

"The University of Calgary has researched how even small amounts of mercury in the microgram range inhibit the formation of neurons. Another study in 2001 by researchers at the University of Calgary reported that cardiac patients receiving chelation therapy for their artherosclerosis fared no better than those who received a placebo. [3]. This latter study has been criticized in its methodology and the validity of its conclusion questioned because of the conflict of interest of its main sponsor, Thiemann, a german pharmaceutical concern. (Thiemann, acquired by Celltech in 2001, had a competing product, "Fludilat" and a financial interest in proving EDTA ineffective.) note: Fludilat is still being marketed by Celltech" Intersofia 12:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Geni, this article has a section on alternative medicine, and autism and artherosclerosis are indications in alternative medicine for chelation therapy. Whether you believe in alternative medicine should not be the issue here. This information belongs in the article. I have provided rationales and references. Unless we can agree to mutually acceptable language, I think arbitration is called for here. Intersofia 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

no you haven't you have provided information that fails to prove your claim. There are som many links missing that the links are meaningless other then provideing a great example of positive confirmation bias. Going to arbcom is a little hasty however I have listed this at RFC.Geni 13:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Geni, if you are going to quote the Thiemann sponsored study, you should state that the purpose of the study was to treat artherosclerosis. That study, flawed as it was, said nothing about treating autism spectrum disorders. 207.67.132.210 22:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

where exactly does the Srticle claim that it did?Geni 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Good, in quoting the Thiemann study, make sure to mention it was in regards to artherosclerosis. Intersofia 01:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I am responding to the RFC placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology.

1. "There is strong evidence to justify this belief, as the University of Calgary has researched how even small amounts of mercury in the microgram range inhibit the formation of neurons." Unfortunately, evidence of "small amounts of mercury in the microgram range inhibit the formation of neurons" is not "strong evidence" justifying that chelation therapy works for autism and coronary artery disease.
2. "Another study in 2001 by researchers at the University of Calgary reported that cardiac patients receiving chelation therapy for their artherosclerosis fared no better than those who received a placebo." This link [4] is probably less biased than the Quackwatch link.
3. "This latter study has been criticized in its methodology and the validity of its conclusion questioned because of the conflict of interest of its main sponsor, Thiemann, a german pharmaceutical concern. (Thiemann, acquired by Celltech in 2001, had a competing product, "Fludilat" and a financial interest in proving EDTA ineffective.)" This study was a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial" (i.e. excellent methodology) that was peer-reviewed and published in JAMA (i.e. one of the most reputed medical journals in the world). That may not mean much to advocates of chelation therapy, but to the rest of us it's a weighty argument against the present bias. Edwardian 05:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

-- Thanks for your comments Edwardian. This need not be a court of scientific results; science, is after all, a POV. Chelation Therapy IS used by "alternative" practitioners to treat both autism spectrum disorders and artherosclerosis. For a reasonable person, struggling with a loved one in this condition, who has empirical (and anecdotal) evidence that autism symptoms are alleviated with chelation therapy, it is important to provide what scientific evidence does exists that perhaps only *suggests* why chelation therapy IS effective in treating this condition. Intersofia 01:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with presenting POV, as long as it's clear it's POV. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states: "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly." In this article, the use of chelation therapy by alternative practitioners for certain conditions is a significant view that should be told fairly. Similarly, mainstream objects to that practice is also a signficant view that should be told fairly.

In my opinion, the article should state simply: "Chelation agents are also sometimes used by alternative practitioners to treat conditions they believe to be caused by heavy metal poisoning, including autism and coronary artery disease. The efficacy of these practices are disputed by mainstream medical research." Both points of view would be told. Unfortunately, it appears that each side insists upon pushing their POV beyond that. Edwardian 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That would probably be fine - I think that would be fair and balanced - in reference to atherosclerosis. No study from mainstream medical research that I know of either proves nor disproves chelation therapy's efficacy in regards to treating autism spectrum disorders. So I feel both U Calgary studies should exist as external links. They both provide relevant information to the topic. In the same spirit of NPOV, then, the statement about the british boy perhaps dying from chelation therapy is totally biased and should be expunged. The article pointed to explicitly states "A post-mortem examination on Abubakar proved inconclusive yesterday and it could be several months before investigations into the cause of his death are completed." While it is true that intravenous EDTA chelation therapy is quite harsh on the body, it should be noted that there are new topical creams for chelation therapy that are much less stressful. Let's word it this way: "Chelation agents are also sometimes used by alternative practitioners to treat conditions they believe to be caused by heavy metal poisoning, including autism and coronary artery disease. The efficacy of chelation therapy is disputed by mainstream medical research in the treatment of atherosclerosis." Intersofia 19:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

alternative practitioners belive that coronary artery disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning? Huh?Geni 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that certainly reads wrong. How about this: "Chelation agents are sometimes used by alternative practitioners to treat autism and coronary artery disease (atherosclerosis). They believe autism spectrum disorders might be caused or worsened by heavy metal poisoning. The efficacy of chelation therapy is disputed by mainstream medical research in the treatment of atherosclerosis. " Intersofia 22:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not accurate for the article to state that mainstream medicine only disputes the efficacy of chelation thearpy in the treatment of atherosclerosis. Given that mainstream medicine by-and-large denies there is a link between mercury and autism, it is fair to assume that mainstream medicine disputes the efficacy of chelation therapy for autism. Edwardian 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not accurate for the article to state that mainstream medicine only disputes the efficacy of chelation thearpy in the treatment of atherosclerosis. The conclusion of the study was this: "Based on exercise time to ischemia, exercise capacity, and quality of life measurements, there is no evidence to support a beneficial effect of chelation therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease, stable angina, and a positive treadmill test for ischemia." If chelation therapy is claimed to be effective in treating coronary artery disease, it is fair to say that mainstream medicine disputes that. Edwardian 02:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we must distinguish between atherosclerosis and autism spectrum disorders in discussing the state of research into the efficacy of chelation therapy. Intersofia 22:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As above, it is not accurate for the article to state that mainstream medicine only disputes the efficacy of chelation thearpy in the treatment of atherosclerosis. Given that mainstream medicine by-and-large denies there is a link between mercury and autism, it is fair to assume that mainstream medicine disputes the efficacy of chelation therapy for autism. Edwardian 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Intersofia changed the section to read: "Chelation agents are also sometimes used by alternative practitioners to treat conditions they believe to be caused by heavy metal poisoning, including autism and coronary artery disease. In 2001, researchers, sponsored by Thiemann, at the University of Calgary reported that cardiac patients receiving chelation therapy for artherosclerosis fared no better than those who received placebo treatment [5]." The explanation for the change given by Intersofia was this: "Clarify that the U Calgary study quoted by Geni pertains to artherosclerosis only, and was sponsored by a party with a conflict of interests."

1. The spelling is "atherosclerosis".
2. The study mentioned in the second sentence is directly relevant to the claim in the first because atheroscerlosis causes coronary artery disease [6].
3. The study should use the link I mentioned rather than the one from Quackwatch: [7]
4. The reference to Thiemann should be removed. The study was a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial" (i.e. excellent methodology) that was peer-reviewed and published in JAMA (i.e. one of the most reputed medical journals in the world). To imply bias through a conflict of interest, especially without mentioning those facts, doesn't hold weight. Perhaps the article should also mention the bias of those who dispute the study. Edwardian 03:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this: [[8]] (in regards to the quality of the research. The parts that makes the study questionable, IMHO, is that the best 70 respondents to EDTA were dropped from the study.) It's undeniable that there is a conflict of interest. Thiemann had a vested financial interest in proving EDTA ineffective and Fludilat a superior alternative. That's a classic definition for "conflict of interest" However, here, I am merely stating a fact: the study was sponsored by Thiemann and was addressing only atherosclerosis (thanks for pointing out the correct spelling). The comment on the conflict of interest is only on the edit history of the article, not in the article itself. So let the reader draw their own conclusion. Thiemann sponsored it, that's a fact. Since there has been no study that I am aware of proving nor disproving the efficacy of chelation therapy to treat autism spectrum disorders, it is relevant to point to information (a link) that show how mercury, even very small amounts, does affect the CNS, and let the reader arrive at their own conclusion. I think to any reasonable person it is obvious that a known powerful neurotoxin like mercury (also an undisputed fact) does not belong in a human body, and that further, when a mechanism for just how it affects the CNS is known, it is incumbent to get the stuff out of that body. This is what chelation therapy does. Intersofia 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No evidence that that form of damage to the CNS can cause autism. We are not dealing with elemental Hg. There is no evidence that EDTA can have any effect on levels of Hg that low. No evidence tha Hg levels that low have any effect at all in vivo.Geni 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinon, a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial" is specifically designed to removed bias and conflict of interest. On the other hand, the webpage you supplied is from a PRO chelation therapy website that has a vested interesting in pushing a conspiracy theory. Incidentally, how does the author have inside knowledge that best respondents being dropped from the study? Was he included in the study, omnipotent, or fabricating the assertion? Edwardian 02:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, this is how: The fact that data from the best EDTA responders were deleted wouldn't have been known if other scientists from Heidelberg with intimate knowledge of the study had not been shocked by what they considered unethical and dishonest scientific conduct. Full article: http://drcranton.com/calgarystudy.htm Intersofia

I would like to do some fact checking. Who are these "other scientists from Heidelberg with intimate knowledge of the study"? The author of that assertion doesn't mention who they are or how he came by that information. Edwardian 06:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

At this point, you fellas are arguing for supressing facts: 1) Thiemann sponsored the study. 2) The Thiemann study pertains to atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, etc. NOT autism spectrum disorders. Edwardian, you are suggesting that we go on assumptions - that is not correct. Let's stick to the facts. Intersofia 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The facts are these:

1. The Calgary study was a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial" (i.e. excellent methodology) that was peer-reviewed and published in JAMA (i.e. one of the most reputed medical journals in the world). Despite this, it is you who want to assume that there is bias in the reporting of the findings.
2. Mainstream medicine has not found a link between mercury and autism. Despite this, it is you who want to assume that chelation therapy for autism is effective and not rejected by mainstream medicine. Edwardian 22:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nor has it disproven that a link exists. Perhaps it has not found this link because 'it' is not trying very hard to find it. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htmWhat is also true in this regard is that Eli Lily, the company that produced thimerosal, has sought legal exemption from product liablity, perhaps it knows full well that it stands to be liable for enormous damages from its negligence. Thimerosal was 'tested' in the '30's on a group of terminal meningitis sufferers. Since they did not die from thimerosal (mercury containing preservatives) within a period of several months, it was ASSUMED thimerosal was safe. These people did die within the year from their unrelated meningitis. A child's development takes years and thus the one study done to prove thimerosal's safety is absurdly irrelevant. This was the only study done on thimerosal's safety. Thankfully, thimerosal has been wisely and quietly dropped from most vaccine formulations.

I am not suggesting that the article assume anything - mereley state facts. I have not been trying to suppress mention of the Thiemann study, (as Geni has been for three months suppressing evidence -the other U Calgary study- that minute amounts of mercury does have serious effects on the CNS.) Merely to mention who did sponsor the study. You may repeat the mantra {"double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial" (i.e. excellent methodology) that was peer-reviewed and published in JAMA (i.e. one of the most reputed medical journals in the world) } ad-infinitum and this does not change the fact that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin, that there are powerful financial interests bent on pretending there is no problem. It also does not change the fact that a link between autism and mercury has not been DIS-proven. I have no opposition to the article expressing this powerful mantra in support of the Thiemann study, but in the interest of full disclosure, state who did sponsor the study, THIEMANN, and in the same spirit of full disclosure, if you are truly unbiased, admit that the have a vested financial interest in finding their own product, FLUDILAT, a superior alternative. How lucky for them that the study went their way ! Intersofia 04:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you want me to admit that Thiemann convinced numerous researchers at or affiliated with the University of Calgary to stake their academic and professional careers by taking money to falsify their reports, and that JAMA was similarly convinced to stake its world-renown reputation by turning a blind eye to these falsified reports. If the weblinks you supplied earlier are any indication, I will subsequently be asked to acknowledge that the FTC, the FDA, and all of the medical schools are involved in this conspiracy against chelation therapy. What I will admit is this: 1) Studies frequently receive funding from industries in the private sector. 2) When an industry in the private sector funds a study, this is disclosed. 3) The purpose of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and peer review is to remove bias in the reporting of findings.

By mentioning Thiemann in the article, your goal is to give the appearance of impropriety where the preponderance of the evidence is that there is none. You have some nerve to suggest that I am the one here who is biased.Edwardian 06:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If in fact the Thiemann study is truly unbiased, then there should be no problem in stating the fact that they sponsored it. I personally do believe that when a party with a financial stake in one result oven another sponsors a study, it will create a slant in some fashion, how exactly, I don't know for certain. What I have read points to the EDTA dose received as being too low (in comparison with the dosage recommended by protocol), that the best respondents to EDTA were somehow factored out of the final report, that Thiemann reserved the right to edit the published report (not to alter the data, but to redact what was reported or not). If the study was done in a truly scientific and objective and neutral fashion, they should be proud to have their name associated with this study. It strike me as naive to think that humans conducting a study would truly be 100% objective and neutral in the design and execution of such study, when they know full well that their paychecks and funding for the study is coming from an entity that clearly wishes and prefers one result over the other. I do believe that it is germane to mention that a party with a conflict of interest sponsored the study. Will you admit that a financial stake in one result versus another actually constitutes a conflict of interest? Also, once again, that study absolutely said nothing in regards to autism spectrum disorders. The link between these type of disorders and mercury from thimerosal or other sources has never been dis-proven. As far as 100% scientifically airtight proof goes, I'm not going to recommend that any more children receive mercury, whether in elemental form, nor in molecules of one, two or more carbon atoms (methylmercury, ethylmercury etc.) We have to fall on what you are calling a "preponderance of evidence". The rise of autism spectrum disorders, co-incident in the 90's with the 2 and 3 fold increase in the number of mercury containing vaccines administered to children, coupled with the fact (once again :-) that mercury IS a powerful neurotoxin is enough to convince me, called me biased if you will. I am conviced. Why is Eli Lily excercising all the political muscle it can muster to get liability protection from thimerosal lawsuits if there is no chance that the mercury it foisted on infants caused their autism ? But I am digressing.... this article is on chelation therapy. 1) Chelation therapy is used by so called "alternative" medicine to treat atherosclerosis and also to treat autism spectrum disorders. (BTW, when Galileo maintained that the earth revolved around the sun, in opposition to prevalent or "mainstream" scientific thought at the time... ¿was he an "alternative" scientist? ) 2) The Thiemann study, flawed or not, biased or not, addressed atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, et al, it did not address autism spectrum disorders (ASD's). Geni's removal of the explicit mention of this casts aspersions on chelation therapy in regards to treating ASD when in fact the Thiemann study says nothing about this. The preponderance of the evidence points to a strong causal link between mercury and ASD. Deleting the link to the nerve-sheath formation disruption U Calgary study is wrong. That study exposes one mechanism whereby mercury severely affects the CNS. It stands to simple reason that if there is a way to get this mercury out of the body, the mercury will no longer affect nerve sheath formation, the neurons will no longer die without their sheaths and cognitive funcitioning will cease to be impaired for that reason. Note that I have not been trying to suppress the Thiemann study, merely to clarify exactly what it pertains to. It is useful information. Likewise, the U Calgary study on tubulin and nerve sheaths is pertinent information. Intersofia 12:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There are too many assertions, comments, and questions to address here. You'll have to go to my Talk page for my reply. Edwardian 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian's comments on the matter here. Intersofia 00:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Abubakar Tariq Nadama

Death of british boy, Abubakar Tariq Nadama The same article quoted by Geni clearly states that the cause of death has NOT been established. Until such is done, "suggestions" are worthless POV. Please refrain from listing them here, or state the whole story. Intersofia 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole story is this: Tariq died approximately 50 minutes after the administration of chelation therapy, how he died is still being investigated, and the event has fueled the controversy. The article should reflect this. The Generation Rescue website is simply rehashing the pro-side of the debate and offers no specific information about Tariq. Edwardian 21:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the cause of death has not been established, it is all speculative at this point. We can all "suggest" many things, but such speculation has little value in an encyclopedia and only serves to push a particular POV. If We are going to have this statement, it should be clearly noted, that even the link provided by Geni states that the cause of death HAS NOT been established at this time. The link I provided to balance the news of the death was that in fact, no deaths due to chelation therapy have occurred going back to the 50's, that Tariq's father is a "mainstream" physician- who elected to have this procedure done and that specifically the death of Tariq has not been determined to be due to chelation. I think that if Geni is going to suppress the mention that this death has most definitely not been attributed to chelation and the information that no other deaths have been attributed to chelation for over 4 decades, it's best to keep "suggestion", insinuations and worthless speculation off the page. Intersofia 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to add an overtly biased link that rehashes the pro-side of the debate to state that the cause of death has not been established at this time. All you need to do is state "the cause of death has not been established at this time"! No one is suppressing that. Edwardian 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If this "speculation" has been made in the popular press, pressure groups or otherwise by public bodies, this is worthy of inclusion. JFW | T@lk 02:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure who the source the speculation was, but it is meaningless. Complications can and do arise out of any medical procedures. Elective cosmetic surgery, you name it. I do agree with the latest edit by Edwardian, this bit is now much more complete, balanced and objective. Intersofia 14:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this point stopped almost 2 years ago and now the URL http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-autistic-boys-death,0,3944165.story in note 15 ("Doctor Charged in Autistic Boy's Death") doesn't work anymore, and there is no copy of the page in the Internet Archive. The Associated dispatch reported by the NY Times on Aug. 23, 2007 in http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/us/23brfs-doctor.html says "The boy’s parents have filed a wrongful death suit against Dr. Kerry, 69, and the state is trying to revoke his license." Maybe we could substitute this link for the dead one in note 15? I'm asking because I am neither a physician nor a scientist. --Calmansi 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Header: Standard of Care added (DMSA replaced EDTA) and POV adjustment.

Correction to header, which lead off by mentioning EDTA. The standard of care in the US is DMSA chelation for Pb, Hg or As poisoning. EDTA is a now obsolete Pb chelator superceded by DMSA in the 1960s. EDTA continues to have alternative uses in heart disease and metal chelation.

POV adjustment. Comment that alternative uses of chelation have no scientific basis is definitely POV. To say that it is highly controversial is not.

Uses in Conventional Medicine

List order adjusted for rough commonness of use. Also, DMPS added.

Uses in alternative medicine

Identified two seprate uses of chelation procedures in alternative medicine. While I know something about heavy metal poisoning, I know nothing about heart disease and the uses of EDTA. Someone please clean up and write something on this sub-section.

I previously made a couple of small edits but they were subtle and narrow. However, upon further reading, this section, especially the heart disease one, is an intellectual disaster. To wit:

*It starts by mentioning there are two uses, heavy metal poisoning and heart disease, then adds in the body that atherosclerosis, autism and macular degeneration also find its use.

*The heart disease section contains a section on organisations and scientific consensus which clearly do not belong in heart disease.

*The heart disease section has an example of use to treat autism which, as written, does not belong here but in an article on drug prescribing errors or the like. The references (one of which is duplicated) there do not support the material as written, only parts.

*In the HD/autism/misadministration/??? part, there is something very important factually that is missing from the discussion on hypocalcemia. A naive administration of a calcium disodium salt (vs just the disodium salt) would not avoid impacting calcium levels unless the increase in level due to solvation of the salt exactly equaled a decrease due to chelation. But this would render the agent impotent. So something is either missing or misrepresented. In addition, as written, this discussion completely contradicts the discussion on the top of the HD section.

So agreed. Very shoddy section. I will give it a go. Baccyak4H 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Section

Extensive additions to include not just the history of BAL, but also EDTA, DMSA, DMPS and ALA and new scientific results of metallothionein—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaltenbrunner (talk • contribs)

Why have you deleted the link to the detoxmetals.com site ?

Hi , i just tried including a link to the detoxmetals.com site, which provides very useful information on the latest chelation therapies and heavy metals in general! I found it very useful and wanted to include it so that many others can benefit from it! This is no Spam! So please put it back or give me a proper reason for not including it! thx.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.0.103.190 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Simply, read wp:el and wp:spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've done a clear-out of external links which were obvious advertisements, also two that had no information on the subject easily findable. I'm... Really hesitant about Generation Rescue, as it is, at the least, NOT a reliable source, but it does illustrate the text.

This article could use some more work, ideally, to balance it and avoid Undue Weight for "mercury causes autism" and other unbacked claims, but this is a start. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually somewhat surprised there is not more discussion in the article about autism applications. There are a lot of very active chelation advocates in the ASD community, although I know not enough to add anything. Without much reference in this article, the Gen Rescue link seems less than appropriate. But I hesitate to remove it, as the perfect article would seem to me to have more discussion on ASD applications (for better or worse; the point is they exist), and some link to coincide with such discussion. In that case my main exception to Gen Rescue might be that it was linkspam, but in the absence of more notable alternatives even that would not likely apply much.

The main problem of the article now as I see it is that it looked like several different people edited it; there is very little continuity, much repeated info, and very disparate levels of detail. Its POV is not greatly N, but I have seen worse! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is much good information on Chelation Therapy at the ACAM site, so I did a Google Search on chelation site:http://www.acam.org which yielded about 35 hits, and selected the most appropriate link. As Adam Cuerden says, we must balance it and this also means avoiding Undue Ignorance of the effects of highly neurotoxic mercury on health. Intersofia 14:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

...I'm really worried about this external link: The American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM). It's promoting chelation therapy for clearing of the arteries, and supposedly to reduce free radical production? ...That's... a really bizarre claim, and doesn't fit in with any known biology. I'm.... highly concerned about putting in such a bizarre and out there website without at least noting it as such. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Although in general perhaps a better link would be to a more mainstream site, even if such a site would boast of a far narrower scope of applications. Currently there are two links which purport to debunk alternative claims, and the Gen Rescue site which is decidedly pro-alternative but also perhaps not fully reciprocally related to this page (a la WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). The page would benefit, even if the link wasn't as sexy as the others. But in any case, returning the ACAM link should probably be contingent on descibing it for what it is, perhaps "with many alternative applications" or somesuch. I am not a fan of the tern "non-mainstream" in this setting on POV grounds, although others may differ. Ideally, both links.... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It also comes a bit under the "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" criterion listed there. For one thing, it has a major dating error that throws things into doubt (lists one study as 1989, then soon after talks about a more recent study - in 1984.) The free radical section is utter nonsense, and the use of chelation to treat heart disease is at best a terribly dated concept, now proven misguided. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess my read of that site was a little too superficial... This raises a problem though. The main article does discuss (albeit embarrassingly poorly) treatment of heart disease, so even if outdated there might be justification for the site. But of course a better idea might be to just improve the article. Let me take another look... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that Adam would describe ACAM as "out there". Decidedly one must have a specific POV for something to be viewed as "somewhere else" or "far out there".  :) Perhaps ACAM views orthodox medicine as too "over there" or "close minded" ? --- All these statements imply a particular Point-of-View. In any case, ACAM seems to be a very thorough web site, with lots of useful information. Perhaps the date inconsistencies are a typo ? Not a reason to discard an important source, which is needed to to balance the External Link section, which gives too much credence to the always-negative and rather reactionary "quack site" of Dr. Barrett and their skeptical brethren. Intersofia 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really that interesting once you see it's not really a POV issue but rather a good faith issue. Without good faith, rather than "out there" Adam could have described it as "fraudulent". But he (rightly) didn't, as he doesn't know that and it would have required a bad faith assumption.

It is not at all clear to me why that site is important (35 ghits? that's nothing); if it would be only for balance I would argue (again) it might be better to have a more mainstream (in this context, read: scientifically competent/literate). Now perhaps it is indeed important or otherwise worthy of inclusion, on POV grounds perhaps, Adam's drawbacks pointed out above notwithstanding; in such case we should include it and then properly characterize it for what it is. This discussion really was intended to determine how to characterize it.

About POV: being accurate is indeed a POV. But it is one which is enforceable. Accurate content may be removed for Undue Weight grounds, but should never be replaced (used) with inaccurate content, without mentioning the context (usually POV) of it. How to mention is our quandary here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It think you have misunderstood the number of hits I mentioned. If you do any search on Google, you may restrict the search domain to a particular domain, which I did, in this case to "acam.org" by specifying the following search string (in double quotes for clarity): "chelation site:acam.org " which yielded the 35 hits I mentioned. The original reason for removing the link to ACAM was that their home page did not contain information on Chelation Therapy. As I have proven, within just the acam.org domain, there are at least 35 references to Chelation Therapy. I chose the page that was most relevant to Chelation Therapy and linked to it. I believe this link should be restored to balance the External Links section. If you wish to characterize ACAM as an alternative organization, I believe that is accurate, as further reading of their web site does indeed prove they see themselves as such. Intersofia 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First let me preface my reply by pointing out that upon rereading my previous posts here, one might easily assume that my POV was more disparaging and negative toward chelation/alternative therapy than it really is. I see no need here to elaborate explicitly on this POV (as my contributions might do so implicitly) but may do so later if it becomes conducive to the discussion.

That said, apologies for misunderstanding your search efforts, although I admit I am still am not convinced that their chelation page is the best for inclusion, given your data (say, might another domain be better?). However, I have no further issue with restoration of the link other than some context be provided, and no more notable site being obviously available to address the balance issue (which does need addressing). If a better balancing link comes along, we can update the page.

How to provide context? Referring to the site as "alternative" somewhow seems almost mandatory in that alternative (sorry) descriptions may be plausible but would be of poorer quality than "alternative" itself. That term is also widely understood (albeit through many POVs), and as you point out (and I can too after reading, I think, sections IV and V of their chelation page), is consistent with WP:NCI.

Rest of the article still needs work though ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ... have put the link back in, please take a look and see if you agree with the link description. Best Regards, Intersofia 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(minor outdent) Looks good to me...I usually like shorter descriptions, but I have no intention of changing that as it sounds very balanced (as a description of its page) to me. Other than, I think "Chelation Therapy" should not be capitalized. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Death of Sandy Boylan from misuse of chelation therapy

It seems to me that the dangers of the "alternative" use of chelation therapy are under-represented. As such, here is a possible source that highlights the risks of chelation therapy when not diagnosed and carried out by qualified medical professionals: http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3329/9039/

Such an issue is not unique to chelation therapy. It is more relevant in the fuller context of all alternative medicine; I would think the issue is better elaborated there, if it isn't already. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Boldly rewritten

I rewrote this article, mainly to 1) excise spurious, off-topic content; 2) consolidate what remained to make it read better, in particular pulling together related content but which was added at different times so it was dispersed all over the article. I note that I changed little, although I toned down some language a bit.

It still could use some more sources. But I hope readers agree it is a better article now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Treatment length

What exactly is the timeframe on this treatment? The only mention is "many years" for Harold McCluskey for Americium. Is that common? Does it vary for other metals? What's the range depending on severity of poisoning? I'd appreciate it if somebody could add some info to the article. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

risk compared to traditional procedures

There is a lot of mention of the one or two cases of misused chelation therapy. But compared to traditional mendicine the risk is non existant. Even aspirin causes many deaths, forget coronary bypass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.213.248 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Chelation therapy expert radio interview show

Revised a bit... No soap box.

A San Diego radio show medical malpractice lawyer turned traffic DUI lawyer, Mr. DUI, co-hosts a radio show.

He apparently had heart disease. He was offered surgery, but turned down all offers to have the procedure performed--instead opting for chelation therapy. After the therapy he felt great. Years after having the therapy, he did not follow-up with periodic maintenance chelation treatments and then suffered a near fatal heart attack, was rushed to hospital where by-pass surgery was performed against his wishes, and he died on the operating table and had to be revived. His surgeon said that he had never seen such calcified blood vessels.

Now he claims to be doing his chelation therapy treatments on a regular schedule rather than have another surgery.

In researching Alzheimer's disease, I found a treatment scheme based on chelation meant to cure Alzheimer's disease after numerous treatments. I compiled an article from several web sources, then today was re-reading the document. I performed a search on one of the doctors mentioned in the article, and found an audio recording of this doctor (25 Mbytes approx. size).

Anyway, have a listen to the radio interview show after the 6m:12s mark after the show's introduction.

It specifically states that chelation was found effective when it was first discovered in the early 1900s and used on car battery factory workers exposed to high lead levels who also had heart disease and chest pains. The key chemical involved was developed a decade or more before WW2, and the German manufacturer had begun in the late 1920s - early 1930s to ship the compound world-wide when WW2 broke out.

The interviewed doctor also says that the AMA are money hungry for their surgeon doctor members and hospitals. It also states that a Swiss study demonstrated a 90% preventative effect on cancer. If I were evil and greedy, then I would fight to prevent chelation therapy from competing with my surgical livelihood, have false medical treatment studies published in peer reviewed journals, have the practice banned from use, sue and take away the licenses of doctors performing the procedure just like some in the USA, and similar countries have done.

Does it seems simple to structure a double blind study to fail: use too much, or use to little, or mix in something that will conflict, or summarize incorrectly, or tamper with the results provided by other contributing researchers? Who benefits from preventing chelation therapy? Heart and stroke foundation? Cancer societies? Pharma? Universities funded by the same? Hmmm? Oldspammer (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you proposing for the article? I would have to imagine that the existence of agents predates their intended therapeutic use by a considerable time, but if you could come up with a reliable source for earlier therapeutic use, that would be good. I am not sure how useful the rest of the material is, as it is all based on affirming the consequent fallacies. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please either make a suggestion to improve the article, or not, but in either case, restrict your edits here (if any) to just this discussion, and not to using the page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended your genteel sensibilities with anything that I had previously written. (see prior history of this talk page here).

I suggest that the chelation therapy article be balanced.

I suggest that while some studies in the distant past may have supported chelation therapy as effective against other than heavy metal poisoning, new studies attempt to show this not to be the case. In the text that I deleted here, and that someone had hidden / collapsed as being not important / not concerning improving the article text / off-topic (here), I suggest that there are reasons for this.

A balanced article would permit the mention that historical circumstances have permitted some to have directed the FTC in their actions. The result of this action was to have the chelation therapy claims web page removed from that linked organization's web site (a form of free-speech of medical doctor practitioners, researchers, scientists; a form of expression, it seems, no longer protected by the US Constitution?) Presumably the groups of medical people had claimed chelation therapy can be used in off-book therapy for treatment of vascular illness and that many of them had been doing just that for decades.

Instead, on that web site, a link publicizing a clinical trial study being conducted by the NIH for vascular illness treatment with chelation therapy is either planned or underway. However, as can be seen in my deleted SOAPBOX-deemed portion of text for this comment, a search link was provided regarding "I stick". One of the search results accuses the NIH of trickiness in conducting some of its studies. I do not have any expectation that the NIH will conduct studies in ways that will deem chelation therapy either effective or safe for such off-book treatments due to the nature of this trickiness.

BTW: I found it impossible to uncollapse part of my text, leaving some collapsed, and continuing my contribution to this discussion without even new section headings being held / captured within the excluded / hidden / collapsed style--so maybe someone did not close enough swirley brace brackets in that edit? Oldspammer (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting med journal articles re vascular disease treatment

Article index result page PubMed Linked PDF of article: Pub-Med PDF- "Guest Editorial: Chelation therapy for Cadiovasular Disease review and commentary." I found its opening paragraphs revealing:

What did surprise me (author Matthew R. Lewin) was the need for such an (negative) editorial in 1995, after the adoption of a dozen formal (negative) position statements by (US)medical organizations* and the federal government (USA). Dr. Conti acted, he explained, at the request of a cardiology colleague, and after having been asked by a number of his patients about the value of chelation therapy for coronary heart disease.

It seems that a cardiology by-pass practitioner was losing patients to this form of off-book medical treatment and wanted to stem the tide by having his journal editor friend denounce the therapy, thereby dissuading future patients from giving it a try?

I found this information by digging through the search results of published medical journal articles: Google search for only some of the proponent doctor studies of EDTA for vascular disease

In a 28-month study, 125 intravenous infusions of disodium-ethylene-diamine-tetra-acetate (disodium edathamil or EDTA) were administered to 58 subjects. Chelation produced four characteristic though occasionally variable responses of ventricular, atrial, and atrio-ventricular (A-V) junctional tissue: (1) suppression of ectopic ventricular beats and ventricular tachycardia, (2) slight slowing of the sino-atrial pacemaker, (3) improvement of A-V nodal conduction in first degree, second degree, and advanced heart block, and (4) increased automaticity of idioventricular pacemakers in complete heart block. Since the slowest effective rate of administration is the safest rate (Spencer et al., 1952), the total quantity of calcium chelated was determined for periods of administration varying from one-half to eleven hours.

— OCR'd from PMC1017808 January 30, 1961

In my mind, this treatment scheme may work, but the underlying cause of vascular disease is not being treated, only its negative symptoms. The human body seems not to replace old with new vessels (disposing completely of the old ones), or it keeps trying to mend the leaks with goo that clogs the rest of things up? It is too bad that science has not found a way to program the responses our bodies seem automatically to make from several choices it may have at its disposal so that the negative consequences can be avoided?

Troubling to me also is how organized, moneyed science is being directed by some (including the US government for some reason) to attempt to demonstrate against what was just quoted in order to keep organized medicine revenue streams flowing? Oldspammer (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One example critical review of Calgary vascular disease chelation study

Doing a Google search of >"Chelation therapy for ischemic heart disease: a randomized controlled trial"< gives about 800 results with the third one being this. At a point about 12% down that page it gives a link that is highly critical of the JAMA article that cites that the study patient subjects were selected using questionable criteria, and a number of other flaws that seriously call into question the validity of that study.

In January, 2002, the American Medical Association published a deceptively worded and blatantly unscientific study alleging to disprove benefit from EDTA chelation as a treatment for heart disease-the so-called Calgary PATCH study.

— Dr. Elmer M. Cranton, M.D. 2002

The doctor further goes on to explain the details of why this is so. Even from examining the Pub-Med summary of the study, it can be seen that patient selection was extremely selective--discarding some legit vascular disease candidates from the study for whatever reasons, dosages were not the same as is given in chelation therapy for conventional vascular disease practice, and before / after determinations did not employ high-resolution imaging analysis on the affected areas under scrutiny that would quantify results (instead less quantifiable measurements were done where the margin for error would be huge / inconclusive).

From the propaganda theories that I've read, the dangers of chelation therapy are that the human body's brief response to lowered serum calcium levels is to leech calcium from the bones worse than that happens with arthritis. When calcium levels return, the bone either does not grow back, or it grows back improperly--I'm thinking just as in arthritis and osteoporosis. If true, I wonder if there is a way to signal this bone loss not to happen in the first place? What chemical / electrical signals trigger the body's natural processes to do this? Can they be interrupted? Oldspammer (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Why the NIH study should be abandoned" reference

This "Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be Abandoned" reference is not fully available to non-members (of MedScape / WebMD). However, upon reviewing the entire article it clearly states that there are Na₂-EDTA and Ca₂-EDTA versions of EDTA. The sodium version is said to be overly effective against lowering Ca deposits so much that even serum levels of calcium are leached too much from your system, causing a shortage of serum calcium called hypocalcemia. The critical article against NIH's on going TACT study says that the NIH should abandon the study due to these high levels of danger.

Being skeptical of this supposed danger, I researched it further. A medical blog elsewhere outlined about 10 cases of deaths caused by chelation therapy in the USA (not necessarily for vascular disease treatment) when the Na₂-EDTA and Ca₂-EDTA versions of EDTA from different suppliers (with different brand names) were confused by medical staff and applied at the wrong dosages per the more potent one.

The result of hypocalcemia is a rigid spasm of most muscles including the heart itself. In most of the cases where death happened, the medical staff did monitor the blood calcium levels, and when it began and continued to drastically fall below recommended levels, they intravenously fed huge amounts of calcium chloride solution desperately into the patient, but these attempts all came too late and all cited cases ended in cardiac arrest.

So we have on the one hand an argument by the Calgary study that the EDTA treatment is completely ineffective to treat vascular disease by removal of calcified plaque from blood vessels, and on the other hand with this medical critique of the NIH trials indicating that one form of EDTA is too powerful and dangerous to use in the trials. So this is a case where the sophistication of the administration of the treatment must be high because either too much, too little, or the wrong kind will cause trouble.

The claim that these vascular disease treatment claims are wild flights of fancy / fringe comes from who and why? What naiveté would someone claim they were wild claims--especially if neighbors of mine down the street purchased books on the topic long before I had even heard of chelation therapy on a TV show decades ago? For how many decades have the treatments been on-going? How many books have been written about the subject of vascular disease treatment via chelation therapy and from how long ago? Weren't some of these vascular disease treatment studies published before many of you were born? Maybe being skeptical of your schooling would be a good plan? Is schooling all encompassing if from orthodox approved school text books? Do vested interests on the boards of directors of universities constitute a source of all truth? Do corporations and their shareholders want to lose their mainstream business venture stakes? Will they be candid about damaging information, or hide facts, and attempt to dissuade people from trying alternatives to their mainstream lines of business? Has the FDA ever been accused of having an incestuous relationship with the drug industry?

I suggest the article be written to suggest that the treatments for vascular disease can be overly effective and kill the patient if not properly administered. Oldspammer (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I happened to add that reference. Could you please cut down on the editorializing and just state your points briefly? They will be much more effective that way. I don't know whether you're against or in favor of chelation therapy for heart disease after all your talk. If you want a change to the article, find a reference and do it. The two go back and forth on its safety and effectiveness. There are critiques of the mainstream med. literature on chelation therapy -- allegations that they've exaggerated their case.[9] I don't really know what to believe, but I imagine under controlled conditions chelation therapy for heart disease is safe enough; the deaths happened when the doctors did not know what they were using. II | (t - c) 18:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety protocol for EDTA chelation therapy researched and developed by dr Cranton

In my opinion, dr Cranton (former Chief of Staff, U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Talihina, Oklahoma and also Officer-in-Charge and Medical Officer of U.S. Navy) has given big contribution to the chelation therapy. He has researched and developed the safety protocol for EDTA Chelation Therapy. He also known as the author of many books and journals (Please see his CV here). He also said that "AMA PUBLISHES JUNK SCIENCE IN APPARENT ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT CHELATION".

You should also read the paper "If EDTA Chelation Therapy is so Good, Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?" wrote by James P. Carter, MD, DrPH (When he wrote this original article Dr. Carter was Professor and Head, Nutrition Section, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.69.238 (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I whole heartedly recommend that Adam Cuerden (Also known now as Vanished user), and similar medical / biology / science interest group members patiently read the entire web page of your cited "If EDTA Chelation Therapy is so Good, Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?" linked document. MastCell is probably completely aware of all of this information.

Many industries and special interest groups that are politically and economically powerful would be hurt financially if chelation therapy were to become more widely accepted. Those same industries have a major influence in our society at all levels. Grants for university and medical school research often stem from those same sources. They spend heavily to lobby for laws, regulations and government funded medical research to favor their own interests and to suppress competition. It is difficult to obtain NIH research funds in the face of opposition from powerful lobbies that occur when that research goes against those special interests.

Those same special interests have a major influence on lay and professional exposure through the news media. Advertising revenues are essential to the survival of medical journals, newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Even with freedom of the press, the media cannot survive without advertising revenues. There often exists an understandable reluctance to bite the hand that feeds them. It is difficult to educate the public and the medical profession about new developments without media cooperation. Medical schools also cannot afford to offend their corporate sources of research funds.

The welfare of the American public is often pushed aside by the industrial quest for profits and pressures to suppress competition. Every industry wants a monopoly, if that can be achieved. Mainstream medicine has come very close to that goal.

By "they / them / industry / special interest groups that are politically and economically powerful" I take to mean the wealthy North American oil family known to endorse monopolistic practices from before the 1900s (for whom the "anti-trust" laws were enacted to break up their oil company monopoly--unsuccessfully), and who sit on major cancer research center boards of directors--who might this be? By this account, they would then be seen as the direct cause of the corruption of organized medicine and science world-wide.

Other parts of the document identify that double-blinded studies have proven EDTA chelation for vascular disease were conducted in Europe, even when the control was already a double-blind proven / and approved drug!

The information presented therein would also serve to demonstrate that there were indeed weathy, powerful forces at work to foil the efforts of Royal Rife, and many other researchers of alternatives to mainstream medicine. Oldspammer (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldspammer, please consider this a formal notice that I will henceforth be removing endless off-topic Rockefeller-obsessed conspiracism from Talk:Royal Rife in accordance with the talk page guidelines, which you seem entirely unwilling to respect. I will leave up to the editors of this article the appropriate handling here. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading that page adds quite a bit of useful perspective here. I fully concur with MastCell: let's drop the conspiracruft. Now. There are plenty of other venues not supported by the five pillars which may be more fruitful places for this kind of material. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias on the autism section

The bias in the autism section is absurd. I really get the point about the lack of scientific back-up for chelation therapy - it was total overkill. This looks like it was written by a company that is trying to cover its ass.

I take issue with citing references saying that there are no studies -- there are, they're just small and poorly supported. Cite them. These people trying to do what they can for autism aren't idiots, and their viewpoint needs to be expressed neutrally.

Kipperoo (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tossed the section recapitulating Thiomersal controversy, adding a {{main}} link to that article (a {{seealso}} might be more appropriate, but a full treatment of the issue belongs more there than here). I kept the reference to the Bernard 2002 paper, but the rest of the references in that paragraph did not deal directly with chelation.

I condensed the anecdotal section to a mere mention. Said mention could be better worded and better sourced, but the weight seems appropriate.

The risks paragraph contained nothing specific to autism.

I nixed the final summation paragraph as poor style and worded too much like medical advice (though we do have a standard disclaimer and strangers on the internet should never be trusted in such matters).

The obvious point that autistic children are not developmentally stagnant, and hence that there will be "improvements" no matter what course is followed, should be made, but I do not have a source to hand.

Punctuation proceeds citations. Not a POV issue, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

Please review the new version and edit, talk, or remove the tag as appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kipperoo, don't just complain, have a go yourself and improve the article to what you think it should read. Anyone can find faults, but if you know so much better than anyone else, you are the person to put it right. We are looking forward to reading your contributions. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed some more stuff (it is a summary section, after all), and removed the tag. Eubulides (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NCCAM on previous studies for heart disease

Well, that was a fast revert. I added a brief, neutral description of previous research [10] as well as other improvements. These were wholesale reverted by Orangemarlin based on "POV" [11]. FYI, I added the highly critical Atwood reference [12], and I don't have a POV on this therapy. I'm interested in getting the correct information out there. I consider the NCCAM, which is a government agency which did extensive research into this trial prior to beginning it, to be reliable for the basic summary of previous conclusions. II | (t - c) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be brief here, since I could be seen as having a conflict of interest, but in my previous dealings with this particular editor his/her point has generally been that including lots and lots of detail can obscure the obvious conclusion. It's great to provide more information, but a casual reader should come to the conclusion that all of the experts say "there's no worthwhile evidence." The interested reader can read and know that there's more to the story, but the mainstream opinion should be clear and unambiguous. Just as a side note, if you're going to say "descriptive trial" you're going to have to explain what that means. SDY (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was channeling the NCCAM's perspective there too strongly. Shortly before your comment I used a systematic review instead [13]. I do think that this article verges on lacking neutrality and stating that chelation therapy is proven ineffective -- the NCCAM has made the case that the previous studies were small enough for a reasonable chance of a Type II. That's not to say that a study this large is justified, but a moderately sized one might have been. I appreciate your comments. II | (t - c) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no real evidence that it does work (per the first line of the discussion section of the systematic review), and there is evidence that it does not work. Sounds like calling it proved ineffective is not a huge leap. SDY (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SDY. Perhaps it would be more broadly acceptable to say that chelation "has not been shown to be effective" for the indications in question. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording I used was "A 2005 systematic review found that controlled scientific studies did not support chelation therapy for heart disease" [14]; however, what I was referring was the implication in the section that it has been proven effective, when the view of the establishment, as seen in AHA's article, is that "there is a public health need to conduct a large, well-designed clinical trial to find out if chelation therapy is safe and effective for treating people with coronary heart disease" [15]. The argument from Lamas and the NCCAM is underrepresented. But eh, no big deal. II | (t - c) 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Forbes blasts chelation therapy

Forbes magazine has posted an excellent article about the misuse of chelation therapy to treat coronary artery disease and autism:

• Heavy Metals Inc.: Doctors pushing chelation are a creative, resilient bunch. Forbes.com, posted December 31, 2009. Whelan D.

Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

repetition

I notice the 1998 action by the FTC against the ACAM is mentioned in two separate parts of the article. This seems like unnecessary duplication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.191 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

wlu reverting the well known anti chelation page link

This is one of the most well known anti chelation pages on the web and very pertient to this wikipedia link, really the removal is not understandable. i would suggest that WLU read this very well researched page in its entirety if his attention span is that long ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osip7315 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a large contemporary chelation practice by naturopaths and some doctors like the DAN group in the usa, this "cultural" area is not really touched on by the article except in an indirect way by the anti-chelation link in question and the "photon" link just before it, this practice is entirely relevant and indeed the bulk of the concern of the article since it is what is actually happening and the safety or otherwise is of extreme interest.

if you have no practical experience in this area the sensible thing to to recognise that lack and place your attention on subjects you are able to bring useful skills to!

i don't know why people think they can jump into a subject with no experience or knowledge and think they can make useful contributions.

wikipedia needs to be alive and informative and where applicable, currently relevant and the "thought police" who roam some of these entries with wilful prejudgements hurt wikipedia by not just reducing article quality, but have the flow on effect of alienating readers and reducing the funding appeal base which is not an insignifcant issue !

i don't know enough about WLU to say wether he is one of these but i have seen others for sure !

extreme editing activity can be one sign.

i have seen a lot of parents with children with deveopmental disorders, especially those who have autistic children become strongly pressured by the DAN doctors and various naturopaths and thier own need for quick fixes to chelate their children and my experience is the result in an inevitable worsening and permanent low ceiling placed on recovery potential.

therefore it important for them to have access to the other side of the story which is why that page was made and it has certainly earned the writer the ire of the pro-chelation community !

Osip7315 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines on external links are pretty clear. Blogs, personal pages, and news sources are not suitable as external links, and in this case they did not seem to be reliable sources (Science Daily was, but a single article is a bad choice for an EL). Links should be lengthy, reliable, and more than just a source. Quackwatch is a well respected parity source that covers suspect alternative medicine with great authority.

Edits are justified by our policies and guidelines. The page shouldn't just have a dump of external links, the truly reliable sources should be used to expand the page. Since chelation therapy is both a valid medical intervention for poisoning, and a lunatic fringe alt med intervention, we should use parity sources accordingly - for poisoning, textbooks, pubmed-indexed articles and recognized authority groups (medically reliable sources). For the fringe claims, MEDRS are better but less reliable sources are suitable to debunk the claims - and that debunking should be done in the body text, not as an EL. But in no case are blogs appropriate - see WP:ELNO points 10, 11, and for good measure points 1 and 15. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

the specific reason you have given is that its a blog. its not a blog or a personal page but addressed and read by people interested in chelation. please read the page! its actually not very different from quackwatch. is not alternative medicine and not lunatic, you just aren't reading it.

at this point you need to wait for other people to give an opinion and a consensus to emerge and actually you need to read it and not just flick.

Osip7315 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Osip7315, the page is about chelation, not about anti chelation, not about chelation controversy, whatever. Moreover, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm to find well known anti (or even pro!) chelation pages. Thirdly, your link addition was challenged, now the onus is upon you why it should be included. In line with WLU, this does not add, it is a personal page, we are not a linkfarm, it is not directly linked, the page does not have merit to be there. It is not WLU who has to wait with reversion of the addition, you have to wait with the addition until we all agree that the link actually should be here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Should have added, it looks like you have a conflict of interest here, even more reason not to include the link yourself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that the removal of these links is following proper policy as per WP:EL. The blogs don't qualify simply due to their nature. The Science Daily article is a good link, but not as an external link and not for this article. It's nature as a scientific article makes it a valid reliable source, and should be used as one; however, it only briefly and at the very end mentions chelation therapy, and thus doesn't belong in this article. I think Osyp, that you perhaps misunderstand the purpose of EL. They are not there to give everyone all of the "necessary" info they "need to know" to make decisions. Take a look at WP:ELYES, which lists, as you will see, a very small number of types of links that are valid External Links; if you think that one of the cites meets one of these criteria, please explain why here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well theres no arguing with an admin so i am just going to state the situation which is that the link is not spam or a blog which is quite apparent on reading it, nor is there any conflict of interest and both WLU and beetsra have no clues on the subject at all and are pursing some sort of "medical political correctness agenda" and wikipedia is the loser

the link in question is http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/links/compendium/chelation.html

these perseverative ignorant young men without life experience or in depth knowledge who patrol wikipedia as "thought police" for various factional viewpoints are the ruination of wikipedia

Osip7315 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being an admin--just an editor who believes the encyclopedia is better when we have and follow policies about what can and cannot be linked. If we didn't, every page would be linked to anything any thought "useful" or "interesting." It's already been said, but please take a look at WP:EL. In fact, to make it even easier, take a look at WP:ELYES, which explicitly lists the three types of External links we look for, along with WP:ELMAYBE, a list of things we can considering linking. The site you linked cannot qualify under any of these, because it's not even close to neutral. In fact, it contains direct attacks of other people; now, these people may "deserve" to be verbally attacked (I have no idea), but that alone makes the link inappropriate for WP. And, no offense if this page is related to you, but it's a highly unprofessional page. It's obvious from the very beginning that it is a hand-designed page with personal, self-published information. That is not what we're looking for here. Again, think about an encyclopedia (like one in paper)--would they include references or bibliographic information to tracts, letters to the editor, or other such information? I'm guessing that your confusion stems from not understanding the project--we want to create the digital equivalent of an encyclopedia, not be a repository for everything anyone considers "important." Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

well i have said it pretty much and its obvious that you and others cannot see the sense in it so the conclusion that follows is an intellectual limitation on your part with an overconfidence in your own viewpoints

we look at each other across a chasm and i go my way and you go yours and if you are interested you can look back in ten years time and try to match what i have said with changes in your life and wikipedia and see if i was correct or not.

144.139.19.8 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

things change in 10 years, our lives, chelation therapy, wikipedia .. have a look at this link how we look at that. But for now those links are inappropriate, as several here have pointed out. I am sorry that you fail to discuss inclusion ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

chelation

This article is extremely biased, as several have already noted.

Such bias proceeds from a provincial viewpoint as the following:

Such an issue is not unique to chelation therapy. It is more relevant in the fuller context of all alternative medicine.

In addition to that, attributing death to chelation when the death has yet to be determined is clearly an example of bias. Also, let it be duly noting in their wikipedia profiles the number of deaths associated with angioplasty....and tylenol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.236.149 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but could you try explaining again what you mean? The most useful thing would be for you to pick some specific part of the article you think is "wrong", explain what you think should be changed, and provide reliable sources that support your alternate approach. Note that if there are two (or more) reliable opinions on the subject, our correct course will be to explain and attribute both; also, note that you do need to provide reliable sources, otherwise we can't make any changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

'Prevalence' section: how many for heavy metal poisoning, how many for alternative reasons?

The Prevalence section under Alternative uses cites ACAM's record of 800000 patient visits for chelation therapy in the US in 1997.

The placement of this section under "Alternative" implies that these patient visits were under alternative medicine recommendations. However, above, it's noted that conventional medicine uses chelation therapy for the treatment of heavy metal poisoning. The failure to divide this "800000" number by diagnosis renders this section misleading; I believe that section attempts to exaggerate the popularity of chelation therapy in alternative applications.

The cited press release fails to make that distinction as well, sadly.

I'm not knowledgeable in this field, so I don't feel qualified to make the edits myself, but from an editorial standpoint I recommend that section be either stricken or amended to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyngvi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of “See Also” links

The article does not have a “See also” section, which it could use to keep it consistent with other wikipedia articles which do have such sections, and to list the relevant wiki articles on, say, the specific chelating agents used.

Foods and Chelating Agents

Are there any foods which contain some of the chelating agents mentioned within this article? For low level mercury exposure (as might occur via Dental Amalgam fillings, or even breathing in exhaust waste from coal fossil power stations which have trace levels of Mercury), this might be enough to affect overall mercury body-burden.

Would it be fair to say that heavy metals are, in a sense, dangerous precisely because there are so few methods available to the body to excrete the relevant heavy metals? This would be consistent with there being very few foods or naturally occurring substances which can be used to aid, for example, Mercury chelation and secretion from the human body.

Comprehensiveness of Chelating Agent List

Are there any other chelating agents which are not contained within the table? The relevant chelating agents in the table (and article) are: Dimercaprol (British anti-Lewisite; BAL), Dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), Dimercapto-propane sulfonate (DMPS), Penicillamine, Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (calcium disodium versante) (CaNa2-EDTA), Deferoxamine and Deferasirox.